29 comments:

You have to wonder why WK is conducting a grudge campaign on behalf of some backwater lib doofus. Who knew the whiny-baby mod of PB had such political clout?

WK waits over a month to air his "concern"?

Was there a point to this incoherent screed, other than some alcohol-fuelled gynophobic attack on a non-aligned blogger WK opportunistically accepted as an ally - and *allowed* to do unrecognized grunt work - when it suited his anti-Hudak campaign agenda?

i don't understand why people disagree with you get labelled in comments as anti-women or scared of women or whatever. can someone not have a different viewpoint than you without being a sexist knuckle dragger? doesn't speaking in that kind of rhetoric only serve to further establish gender lines?

seems clear to me warren is a pretty progressive guy when it comes to social policy and he disagrees with you so he's a neaderthal male or he doesn't like angry wimminz? cmon. is that the level of discourse you want?

Heck, I didn't know DJ's profile was that big that a backroom guy like Mr. Kinsella would be moved to take a shot. Of course, he's not acknowledging DJ! as a group or even a blog, just Ms Fern's existence somewhere out...there...in blogger land and that, dismissively. It's not like he actually linked to DJ! blog or the posts involved in all this. He apparently managed to cut off the title of the blog in his screen capture as well, but that last part might be incidental.

Also, if so many already knew about Hudak's anti-choice views, were they actually publicizing it? I, in my own vague way, remember people thanking Ms Fern for her digging and dragging out into the light of new day.

It's interesting that WK's ignored the messages of support to DJ! from other progressive bloggers over this 'line in the sand'/accommodationism on regulating abortion matter. preferring to frame it as Ms Fern 'in a fight with pretty much every progressive blogger'. --Citation please--

Does he mean 'progressive blogger'? Or does WK mean 'Progressive Blogger'? Which still doesn't fit the assertion, but it must be Progressive Blogger because he goes on to say 'she wanted off their aggregator'. She=isolated Ms Fern. They=progressive bloggers as a common noun, only vaguely inferenced as a specific organization that does not encompass all 'progressive bloggers'. Mr Kinsella is a professional writer and political strategist. Is this accidental or more subtext for his purposes?

It's also interesting he doesn't link directly to Morgentaler's comments but to another blogger who complains the Conservatives will win ...something if social progressives don't give legal ground on late term abortions and does a partial quote on Morgentaler, leaving out the part of his words in the 7+ year old article about the great majority of late term abortions being done for extreme reasons and it being better they be done in country rather than forcing such women to go out of country for the surgery. The numbers of such being...dozens, so uhm, yeah, huge lazy slut crisis needing criminal laws there. Maybe there's been a rush on near-baby'borts in the years since then.

Mr. Kinsella appears to be irony challenged while using Fern's quote about Ms Connie and the petition, which seems unlikely, given his pervue, so it might be a deliberate smear tactic, =look *nazis*=!! although, why bother if Ms Fern is a political nobody?

part deux (ok, I spotted more typos, snapped like a dry twig and deleted the first try and this is the replacement, I better go sleep)

=====

At the same time...he's framed himself, by his own assertion, as the reasonable, practical sage in These Important Matters, yet somehow misses with his great political acumen, the blaring screencap proof that *strong feminists* and fracking *Free Dominion* can actually find common ground enogh to sign a petition demanding accountability on the election vote suppression ROBOCALLS scandal?

I..wait..what..does Mr. Kinsella think protesting the robocalls scandal is a *bad* thing for any Canadian of any stripe? Or is he vaguely intimating that she'd rather line up with Freedominionites than 'her' people in progressive land? You know, that huge monolithic hegemony that agrees on all things, especially giving legal ground to the Conservatives so they...I dunno, don't give us a swirlie after taking our lunch money?

And yet, he piled it on with an assertion Fern 'hectored' for a blog award, shilling for distinction that he himself, being a rational intellect Above All That would never do. Not DJ! Just Ms Fern herself. Another classic genderized insult and isolation of Ms Fern from any impression of community support.

--Citation 2 please-- My memory has failed me on this one too, unless Ms Fern is leading a secret triple life that I never see, which is always possible. Probability...not so much.

Is WK referring to this year where anyone up for an award was 'hectoring' for votes in a good natured fashion, or is he mashing together this year and back when DJ! challenged about the feminist category for the awards in the hopes people reading his site have no time sense?

Holy hand grenade, I hope Mr Kinsella never sees the razzing going on between Pharyngula and compatriot blogs when they're 'competing'. I mean, Professor Myers commands his minions to go out and *crush* the competition. But then, a lot of this is sounding eerily familiar to the !j'accuse! Myers and crew get about being extreme 'angry atheists'.

I'm also interested to see WK declare "quote/unquote" on two words of Fern's comments with his assertion as to the rest outside the "" part -- (clever, very conflation clever Mr Kinsella) re: fewer abortions/fetus lobby, but didn't actually link to the words for context etc.

Bottom line, I call Swiftboat bingo and am wondering what sort of influence Ms Fern has that Mr Kinsella feels moved to actually pen poison words in her direction? I mean, who in back room VIP land moves on people who can't do damage? There's no profit in it.

Oh well, WK can be the reasonable sage. He's never going to be pregnant and all things are negotiable in politics for the greater good, aren't they? Feminists believing women's bodies are not negotiable are just going to have to stop their screeching and STFU. You know, like the Conservatives told women to do.

Of course, WK walked out on certain factions in the Liberal party, when by staying and not rocking the boat so much and putting his political experience to the wheel, he could have not split Liberal power and given the Conservatives scattered herd carcass to chew on. Or...is that different?

KW has a point - the optics of Fern sharing the bed with FD types isn't great, but coming as it does from a so called Liberal (pardon - member of the "insider backroom Liberal elite" cough, cough) that writes a column for the neo-con Sun I think a hearty please join the KMA Club is warranted.

It's said that politics makes strange bed fellows, but in reality it's all perception. Robin Sears doing service for Lying Brian is just business because we all know he has the right progressive lefty credentials (cough, cough).

Oops sorry it looks like I let the cat out of the bag. Politics at a Pro "big picture" level isn't the same as it is for the unwashed masses.

Me thinks the squeals from KW have less to do with the subject of abortion than it does with the fact Fern gave the Progressive pack a good and well deserved public kick in the gonads.

Kinsella is an establishment hack and he hates it that the left and right are willing to put our differences aside and fight against things like prorogation, and lawful access. This means what we are doing is effective.

I was about to write something in my own defence, but Fern Hill has the right idea. If anyone is inclined to think that Kinsella is telling the truth about me, please feel free to google me. I have well over 18,000 posts and I have never, EVER expressed the kinds of opinions that Kinsella is accusing me of.

Despite our obvious political differences, I have a lot of respect for Fern Hill, and I've been working very hard with other friends from the left side of the political spectrum, too, to try to put a stop to an out-of-control, power-hungry government.

I think we should question the motives of anyone who would try to destroy this kind of left/right cooperation.

I'm sorry, I don't agree that WK's accusations about the substance of your ideology are *that* off-base, although it's pretty rich coming from someone who shares the Sun TV masthead with Ezra Levant. You're an enabler, through your sponsorship of FD, of a concentration of some of the worst political tendencies in Canada.

*That said*, I am perfectly comfortable with alliances of convenience to achieve some well-defined procedural (rather than policy) ends, such as opposing Harper's abuses of process. And, again, it's very rich and hypocritical for Warren Kinsella to criticize, and not *just* because of Sun TV.

The LPC is *all* about electoral politics, principles be damned. And when they are getting their asses handed to them electorally, apparently, like the average two year old, they settle for negative attention is better than no attention. Thus, the immature passive-aggressive baiting & bullying.

Human rights are not up for debate. Would like to think that's why fetus-fetishists like Paul Steckle, Dan McTeague, etc. got their butts kicked to the curb.

I'm with JJ, this was on a par with the Swiftboating attacks on Kerry in 2004 in terms of the quality of the attacks and the information used to do so. This is not a comparison I lightly use either, I was extremely disgusted with the SBVfT and what they did, as I am a bit old fashioned when it comes to issues of honour, especially military honour and dealing with those who clearly served in combat for their nation. It was the way I was raised, also because many over the generations in my family did serve in uniform (as I would have had not I blown my right knee apart less than 2 mos after turning legal age, I had been a cadet for several years prior to then) including in both World Wars so it can be a bit of a sensitive area for me. So when I am comfortable comparing an attack with what the SBVfT did then it truly is really really rank indeed, which perfectly described Kinsella's piece on Fern Hill's integrity and character.

To call FD "conservative" is to let a word get stretched too far. Even if you may or may not have established plausible deniability for yourself, there are far too many people on there who I know would happily denaturalize and deport me and mine---or worse! Don't try to deny it: I know you know that I've been around practically since back at the beginning of both babble and FD.

David Frum is a conservative, in a literal sense and even in a traditional political sense. He wants to "conserve" things I don't think are worth conserving and is even willing to use force to freeze a certain idealized world in amber. FD is not conservative, it is radical, or radical-enabling.

Why is it o.k. for WK to belong to the Sun family, and not o.k. for Fern Hill to publicly acknowledge that she & Connie agree on a few issues? Perhaps WK has a hero complex, perhaps he wanted to be seen as the one man who could find common ground with the right, but two women are stealing his thunder.